Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66? (1 Viewer)

[Moe Dickstein]

Nice! It's funny people complain here about the frame adjustments as advertised for the upcoming Shane... (people say it's not the true 1.66:1 as seen in theaters in the days) -- But I don't see none of you complaining about frame adjustments in the academy version of On The Waterfront which is both cropped on the sides, and zoomboxed in several scenes. Why?

Because nobody told them about it for them to be "outraged", David

 

[DVDvision]

I know, I'm just pulling their legs...

 

[Yorkshire]

Nice! It's funny people complain here about the frame adjustments as advertised for the upcoming Shane... (people say it's not the true 1.66:1 as seen in theaters in the days) --

But I don't see none of you complaining about frame adjustments in the academy version of On The Waterfront which is both cropped on the sides, and zoomboxed in several scenes. Why?

I'm guessing that it's possibly because in every theatrical screening of a film you never see the whole frame, and it's 'cropped on all sides'.

David, do you have any comparisons between the new Criterion 1.37:1 version and the full frame so we can see how much it's cropped?

Cheers.

Steve W

 

[PaulaJ]

Lou Lumenick interviews George Stevens, Jr. about the Shane Blu-ray.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/george_stevens_jr_speaks_out_on_eYV1jnxnoOs92gpzodhqEN#ixzz2RROrCII

For the Blu-ray, Stevens Jr. says, Paramount originally approached him with the idea that the release should include both versions. For the 1:66, he reviewed the framing shot by shot -- "you can frame it so the Tetons remain. It's quite a beautiful version as a result. Though my preference remains for the (1:37) version my father framed.

"Paramount at one point said to me that 'Shane' was shot so it could be shown in diferent aspect ratios. Not true, it was shot the way it was shot. And it was always my intention to have the true version of 'Shane' released on video. This was never a capitulation on my part.''

Paramount eventually licensed the film to WHV, which he says told him that putting both versions on one disc wasn't a feasible idea.

Verrrrrrrrry interesting.

 

[Tom Logan]

"Though my preference remains for the (1:37) version my father framed."
"Paramount at one point said to me that 'Shane' was shot so it could be shown in diferent aspect ratios. Not true, it was shot the way it was shot. And it was always my intention to have the true version of 'Shane' released on video. This was never a capitulation on my part.''

So at least 50% of this thread has been proven 100% wrong.

 

[DVDvision]

What, no one said it wasn't shot and composed for academy.

The thing is that the theatrical aspect ratio is 1.66:1, and that in 99,99% of the times, DVD and Blu-ray preserve the Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

This will not be done here, hence it's a triumph for the Pan&Scan brigade. The people who prefer movies not to be seen in their Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

That the original intended ratio is the one we're going to get it irrelevant. It's still not the original Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

 

[Ruz-El]

This will not be done here, hence it's a triumph for the Pan&Scan brigade. The people who prefer movies not to be seen in their Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

That the original intended ratio is the one we're going to get it irrelevant. It's still not the original Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

You do realize that Pan & Scan is not the same thing as Acadamy Ratio, so attempting to cheapen this release with that term is an incredibly false thing to do right?

We're getting Shane as it's supposed to be seen instead of how it was marketed by bean counters. In this case I don't see why anyone would want to trumpet what was originally released to theaters.

 

[Rob_Ray]

I don't get the obsession with Theatrical aspect ratios. To me, the intended ratio of the craftspeople is all that is important. How it was eventually released by distributors is irrelevant to me, but nice to be had as a bonus extra. There were films shot in 3D that never got released in that format. If the 3D materials exist, that version is the paramount one I would want released. The 2D version would strictly be for compatibilty with 2D monitors.

Virtually everything released after a certain point in 1953 was shown widescreen, whether it was intended to be wide or not. I seem to recall someone once mentioning that The Band Wagon played some 1953 engagements cropped to widescreen with disastrous results. Should we ask for a widescreen transfer of that one?

 

[DVDvision]

One can argue that the final, theatrical ratio was intended in the end. By the director himself. Here, we have protection of an early intent.

It's a bit like championing the Star Wars SE versions over the theatrical (only it's not about the format for SW, but content). George (I mean Lucas) do says the final versions are what he always "intended".

Does their only availability makes him right?

In essence, my feeling is that if the widescreen version does not appear on Blu, we have transformed George Stevens into George Lucas. Lucas does protect his early intent with his changes, but that doesn't make them being the only versions available right.

I believe George Stevens Jr. was earlier going for the widescreen version, because that would be the main presentation his father would have chosen today, with the academy being the second choice, for buffs.

 

[Robin9]

That the original intended ratio is the one we're going to get it irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to me! It's absolutely crucial.

 

[Tom Logan]

Wait. It isn't settled that the upcoming Blu-ray of Shane will have the 1.66 version only? Did I miss a meeting?

 

[Ruz-El]

One can argue that the final, theatrical ratio was intended in the end. By the director himself. Here, we have protection of an early intent.

It's a bit like championing the Star Wars SE versions over the theatrical (only it's not about the format for SW, but content). George (I mean Lucas) do says the final versions are what he always "intended".

Does their only availability makes him right?

In essence, my feeling is that if the widescreen version does not appear on Blu, we have transformed George Stevens into George Lucas. Lucas does protect his early intent with his changes, but that doesn't make them being the only versions available right.

I believe George Stevens Jr. was earlier going for the widescreen version, because that would be the main presentation his father would have chosen today, with the academy being the second choice, for buffs.

It is like that, except it is completely different.

George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, revised his films to his liking.

George Stevens compromised his film to the studios liking for it's initial release, and is no longer with us to "correct" the widescreen version of the film he shot as 1:37. The 1:37 is the version taht should absolutely be protected. Steven's son agrees.

The 1:66 version that played in theaters during it's premier was never going to get a release. You can create it yourself by masking of the top and bottom of your TV.

Perhaps Bob's article when it posts will lend insight into how willing and pleased Stevens was with the widescreen opening, or if he was being a gentleman and team player.

 

[Brian McHale]

This will not be done here, hence it's a triumph for the Pan&Scan brigade. The people who prefer movies not to be seen in their Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

I've been following this whole debate and am still forming my opinions. However, this is a ridiculous comment. Pan and Scan absolutely destroys the composition of the film as created. Are you suggesting that releasing a film in the aspect ratio it was shot in is destroying the composition of the film? Ridiculous.

Furthermore, it is not true that the "pan&Scan brigade" prefers movies in other than their theatrical aspect ratio. You just made that definition up to support your personal viewpoint. They prefer movies to fill their television screens. They really couldn't care less about director's intent, theatrical releases, modifed aspect ratios, etc., they simply want their screens filled.

You have some valid points to make in this argument. However, you seem to put forth your arguments from the standpoint that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. It's not a very convincing tactic.

 

[Lromero1396]

{post deleted}

 

[DVDvision]

What I mean by Pan&Scan brigade is that they are not in support of how the movie was originaly seen, but in support of "boxy" for old films, whatever ratio it was shown originally. Ie a Superscope film should be 1.33. Anything showing more top and bottom is good, anything showing more left and right and less top and bottom is bad.

Of course, no relation to what P&S originaly was in the VHS and boxy TV days.

 

[Yorkshire]

What I mean by Pan&Scan brigade is that they are not in support of how the movie was originaly seen, but in support of "boxy" for old films, whatever ratio it was shown originally. Ie a Superscope film should be 1.33. Anything showing more top and bottom is good, anything showing more left and right and less top and bottom is bad.

Of course, no relation to what P&S originaly was in the VHS and boxy TV days.

Can we please stop using the word 'boxy'?

For me, you've hot the nail on the head to an extent.

We all know that almost all 1.85:1 films have been shot to be shown in that ratio and to be masked as such in cinemas For almost all of us, that being the case, that's what should be on the disc. Agreed.

The question arises about films shot just in the months and years after the changeover in '53. Were directors (A) composing for 1.85:1 with dead space top and bootom (or just bottom), (B) with a view that the film could be shown in any ratio, and tried to balance the lot, so each is equally valid, or (C) were they shooting with their old 1.37:1 heads on but just making sure they never shot too tightly?

If it's (A) the film should be presented in 1.85:1, if it's (C) it should be 1.37:1, if it's (B), then I think you can argue the case for anything.

With Shane it's not even (C). 1.66:1 wasn't even invented, and no mind will have been paid to its possibility, unless research shows up otherwise.

Steve W

 

[DVDvision]

Boxy, is us giving a nod to colorful blogger Wells...

I like to believe that Shane was part of the early widescreen 1953 zeitgest. To rob the film of that aura on video and replace it with the "original intent" is I think a mistake, just as much as rob people of the theatrical cuts of SW which were part of the 1977 zeitgest are a mistake.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Can we please stop using the word 'boxy'?

For me, you've hot the nail on the head to an extent.

We all know that almost all 1.85:1 films have been shot to be shown in that ratio and to be masked as such in cinemas For almost all of us, that being the case, that's what should be on the disc. Agreed.

The question arises about films shot just in the months and years after the changeover in '53. Were directors (A) composing for 1.85:1 with dead space top and bootom (or just bottom), (B) with a view that the film could be shown in any ratio, and tried to balance the lot, so each is equally valid, or (C) were they shooting with their old 1.37:1 heads on but just making sure they never shot too tightly?

If it's (A) the film should be presented in 1.85:1, if it's (C) it should be 1.37:1, if it's (B), then I think you can argue the case for anything.

With Shane it's not even (C). 1.66:1 wasn't even invented, and no mind will have been paid to its possibility, unless research shows up otherwise.

Steve W

Although pan and scan always annoys me, I personally don't mind open mat for films released in widescreen and shot by ordinary directors. As an example, I prefer the open mat version of A Christmas Story. One thing I really enjoy about the film is looking at the sets and the various Christmas decorations, and I prefer to see more of that rather than less. Sometimes, in such cases, I think what is gained more than makes up for what is lost.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Although pan and scan always annoys me, I personally don't mind open mat for films released in widescreen and shot by ordinary directors.

So only non-ordinary directors deserve to have their framing choices respected?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

What I mean by Pan&Scan brigade is that they are not in support of how the movie was originaly seen, but in support of "boxy" for old films, whatever ratio it was shown originally. Ie a Superscope film should be 1.33. Anything showing more top and bottom is good, anything showing more left and right and less top and bottom is bad.

Of course, no relation to what P&S originaly was in the VHS and boxy TV days.

SuperScope is a minefield. Some films shot for 1.37:1 (Invasion of the Body Snatchers) were unceremoniously cropped to fit the SuperScope format. All films shot "flat" as opposed to "scope" during the transition period should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis for what is appropriate.